5 ms·

Well, one could argue that they improved the world in certain focused ways. For example, Amazon and Apple have raised the bar in online sales, delivery logistic

Well, one could argue that they improved the world in certain focused ways. For example, Amazon and Apple have raised the bar in online sales, delivery logistics, smartphones, tablets, and personal computers. This doesn't absolve them from the fact that some of their revolution has taken place behind a paywall. But to say that they haven't improved the world because it didn't happen perfectly, is not quite correct. My life - and that of many of my peers - is substantially better due to the actions of Amazon and Apple.

freshhawk 14y ago
"is substantially better" That's ... not the normal definition of "substantial". Your life is materially more convenient, probably much much more so. The argument here is that the small and widely distributed negatives inherent in that model affect social things that are literally "substantial" and the gain in individual convenience is a poor tradeoff.
- theorique 14y ago
  All I mean that I can point to several specific ways in which my life is improved ("materially more convenient", if you prefer) because of the actions of these companies. I'm not sure what specifically you mean by "small and widely distributed negatives", but the balance of convenience against cost is something that each customer decides. If being a customer of Apple, Amazon (or whoever) is perceived as a net benefit, people become a customer. If not, then they don't.
  - freshhawk 14y ago
    But the argument was that they "improved the world", not that they were a good cost/benefit tradeoff for each individual consumer. One of those has to take negative externalities (aka social/legal consequences or the "small and widely distributed negatives" I was referring to) and the other does not. You don't get a "star trek future" by trading freedom for micro-improvements in convenience.
zem 14y ago
my life, and that of many of my peers, is substantially better due to the actions of stallman and torvalds.
- theorique 14y ago
  Agreed - me too!

freshhawk 14y ago

"is substantially better" That's ... not the normal definition of "substantial". Your life is materially more convenient, probably much much more so. The argument here is that the small and widely distributed negatives inherent in that model affect social things that are literally "substantial" and the gain in individual convenience is a poor tradeoff.

theorique 14y ago
All I mean that I can point to several specific ways in which my life is improved ("materially more convenient", if you prefer) because of the actions of these companies. I'm not sure what specifically you mean by "small and widely distributed negatives", but the balance of convenience against cost is something that each customer decides. If being a customer of Apple, Amazon (or whoever) is perceived as a net benefit, people become a customer. If not, then they don't.
- freshhawk 14y ago
  But the argument was that they "improved the world", not that they were a good cost/benefit tradeoff for each individual consumer. One of those has to take negative externalities (aka social/legal consequences or the "small and widely distributed negatives" I was referring to) and the other does not. You don't get a "star trek future" by trading freedom for micro-improvements in convenience.

zem 14y ago

my life, and that of many of my peers, is substantially better due to the actions of stallman and torvalds.

theorique 14y ago
Agreed - me too!